- 8,795
- 4,099
You could just had said "platonic cave", and it would have gotten the point betterbetween 2 metaphysical realms that shape and define the physical worlds in every conceivable way.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You could just had said "platonic cave", and it would have gotten the point betterbetween 2 metaphysical realms that shape and define the physical worlds in every conceivable way.
The translation discrepancy got already debunked and Glass never addressed that bit further or anything.Not at all seeing how this is 1-A, let alone High 1-A. It seems to be the most generous and loose interpretation possible, shaded behind "context" that's just an exaggerated comparison. Not even accounting for the translation discrepancy brought up by Glass. Disagree with the upgrade, Ultima's and Theglassman12's reasonings make more sense to me.
I've read the thread, saying how it can mean X under certain context doesn't really change the underlying kanji translation.The translation discrepancy got already debunked and Glass never addressed that bit further or anything.
That's just the kanji on a vacuum, again, gotta quote myself on this:I've read the thread, saying how it can mean X under certain context doesn't really change the underlying kanji translation.
And even aside from that, this upgrade would still be flawed anyways.
Okay, a better explanation, it'd be like saying that the etymology of a word stands literally for its origin over its current use, especially when taking into account the combination of terms granting possible different interpretations, a good example is how the etymology for the word "atom" would translate to something that can't be divided, even though that evidently isn't true regarding its subject strictly speaking.
This seems reductive when Japanese is a highly contextual languageI've read the thread, saying how it can mean X under certain context doesn't really change the underlying kanji translation.
Again, that is not the argument, at no point did I make a claim saying “existing below R>F means you are beyond it.” The claim is that one world provides the ontological basis for the world below it and thus would be higher in quality. The SoA is not a part of the descending R>F hierarchy, if that was the case Riku wouldn’t need to obtain the power of waking. Hearts are already accepted as Type 1 concepts, which are platonic concepts. This isn’t my interpretation, in fact it was established far before I became active. Me not referencing the platonic cave is me being and idiot and not thinking of it, hearts are platonic in nature as again, accepted.Except that nothing in that blog remotely has anything that actually qualifies for R>F stuff, especially when all it is is just constantly 11-C downscaling and somehow extrapolating it into 1-A to High 1-A.
I don’t have a single shred of knowledge on CSAP so I can’t argue on what would get accepted there. I can, however, state that being beyond the concept of dimensionality is not required to gain 1-A. Especially when the point of the argument is that again, one world provides the platonic basis for the baseline reality.] a lot of this stuff sounds like stuff that would pass for 1-A in CSAP wiki, not the VSBW. Also again, Megaten has actual dimensionality being transcended at a conceptual level, KH doesn't. Also worlds that comprises of concepts that define reality does not even reach 1-A, what verse unironically does that by itself without any elaboration of dimensionality being surpassed? I can name several verses on the top of my head that has concepts defining reality but that doesn't translate to 1-A by default.
I'm not seeing any valid arguments for 1-A or High 1-A that isn't doing some serious bending. The fact Ultima already rejected it after making the tiering system changes also doesn't give me any indication that LH gets to 1-A.your inputs here would be appreciated
Could you elaborate on the “serious bending?”I'm not seeing any valid arguments for 1-A or High 1-A that isn't doing some serious bending.
So count me as against.
As one example, Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation being called platonic concept on the site just means it's an independent function the things that participates in that idea. But that doesn't translate to qualitative superiority on its own.Could you elaborate on the “serious bending?”
Alrighty thenAs one example, Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation being called platonic concept on the site just means it's an independent function the things that participates in that idea. But that doesn't translate to qualitative superiority on its own.
So statements saying the Final world (proposed 1-A in question) being unreasonable by the physical world wouldn’t help here huh.For the 1-A scaling you're arguing that since one is a qualitative lesser that the other should be a qualitative greater, but that isn't a valid argument for either tier. Since both arguments involve layers going up or down in comparison to the baseline cosmology. 1-A and up require a complete disconnection.
Everything in the verse is comprised of darkness, someone tapping into higher forces would be something like achieving Brahman. As it was already existent within you.The fact the Darkness can spawn things that can spawn lesser things that can then tap into greater fundamental forces is just an anti-feat in my view. So I'm against this upgrade for those reasons and the stuff previously mentioned by Ultima. So list me as disagree.
No, it doesn’t.Doesn't all of that shit comes from a noncanonical novel?
Hasn't that term been discarded?As one example, Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation being called platonic concept on the site just means it's an independent function the things that participates in that idea. But that doesn't translate to qualitative superiority on its own.
The image for the page is Plato's concepts and the ideas of the tier are based on them. The terminology just isn't present anymore.Hasn't that term been discarded?
I'm not really seeing where you're getting the second temporal axis from. Can you explain it in more detail here?If 1-A and High 1-A are in disagree what about 6D ocean between based on the arguments proposed
Well none of that implies a secondary time axis to me. Ignoring that I guess 6D in terms of 4D+2 would work.That's already accepted here
It's more so some semantics in the series involving time travel to states of the cosmology before some erasure requiring an hypertimeline to work, more specifically, the cosmology once all had a single universe, then that universe was erased, then a ton of universes were born a while after that, meaning that for characters to be able to travel from the original universe and to the future (and vice-versa) that'd be outside of such timeline as it doesn't exist anymore to begin with, thus would require an hypertimeline, it's kinda like the hypertimeline thing in Sonic involving Crysis City in Generations but explored more in depth.Well none of that implies a secondary time axis to me. Ignoring that I guess 6D in terms of 4D+2 would work.
Though in reality I'm only seeing 4D+1 because everything you listed in that blog has nothing to do with different temporal directions in my view.
Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole are changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
the hyperspace stuff is something Qawsed is fine with in the first place.
Though in reality I'm only seeing 4D+1 because everything you listed in that blog has nothing to do with different temporal directions in my view.
Well none of that implies a secondary time axis to me. Ignoring that I guess 6D in terms of 4D+2 would work.
I think it's just 5-D for being 4D+1. However, the current accepted scaling for the realm is 3D+2 and the OP is saying it should be 4D+2.He still said he only sees 5-D at best from your blog, even if he's fine with hyperspace, he didn't say he agrees with 6-D.
I think so.TBH I'm starting to feel that users are focusing on the High 1-A stuff evaluation-wise when that's no longer the focus, would it be better to just make a separate thread for the hyperspace stuff?